Advice - solution for a company server

Hello,
I need to estabiilish a new solution for my company (rather small). We now
need a company server that should handle 10 workstations - to provide users
with opportuninty of sharing their project files and to set their own e-mail
accounts on it. We already have a proper machine (as I was told), but I
don't know which software will be good enough for this task, and of course
it shall be not expensive - we are only interested in the genuine software.
My colleagues told me about some Linux OS, but we don't want to pay for the
server administration right now, and no-one in my team knows this systems.
Can you help me to choose a right software?
Shall Windows Small Business Server 2003 be a good solution (can a common
computer user operate it?), or do we really need an adminitrator to handle
one of the Unix systems?

Thanks in advance,
Hailie

Shenan
Mon Sep 26 09:45:31 CDT 2005

Soft wrote:
> I need to estabiilish a new solution for my company (rather small).
> We now need a company server that should handle 10 workstations - to
> provide users with opportuninty of sharing their project files and to
> set their own e-mail accounts on it. We already have a proper machine
> (as I was told), but I don't know which software will be good enough
> for this task, and of course it shall be not expensive - we are only
> interested in the genuine software. My colleagues told me about some
> Linux OS, but we don't want to pay for the server administration
> right now, and no-one in my team knows this systems. Can you help me
> to choose a right software? Shall Windows Small Business Server 2003 be a
> good solution (can a
> common computer user operate it?), or do we really need an
> adminitrator to handle one of the Unix systems?

SBS 2003 then would be your best bet - if you have already determined the
price is fine.
As far as who can use it - you still need to be more than your average
computer user to set it up correctly and such.

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

Imhotep
Mon Sep 26 17:10:14 CDT 2005

"Soft" <happsz(at)o2.pl> wrote:

> Hello,
> I need to estabiilish a new solution for my company (rather small). We now
> need a company server that should handle 10 workstations - to provide
> users with opportuninty of sharing their project files and to set their
> own e-mail accounts on it. We already have a proper machine (as I was
> told), but I don't know which software will be good enough for this task,
> and of course it shall be not expensive - we are only interested in the
> genuine software. My colleagues told me about some Linux OS, but we don't
> want to pay for the server administration right now, and no-one in my team
> knows this systems. Can you help me to choose a right software?
> Shall Windows Small Business Server 2003 be a good solution (can a common
> computer user operate it?), or do we really need an adminitrator to handle
> one of the Unix systems?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Hailie

The good thing about linux is you can pay someone to set it up for you and
just let it run, and run, and run and run....

Personally, I would go with Linux before anything Microsoft....

Im

Steven
Mon Sep 26 18:51:33 CDT 2005

SBS 2003 would be a goof choice and it also comes with a version on
Exchange. There are a number of good books out about Windows 2003 Server and
SBS 2003 and a number of newsgroups with very helpful people. Linux is not
the best choice for a managed environment if you have Windows 2000 and
particularly Windows XP Pro computers. You can do a lot to have consistent
security policy and user environment in an Active Directory domain much you
will probably not appreciate at first. While the cost of Linux is attractive
you need to think about total cost of ownership and not just the cost of the
operating system. If someone wanted to create a DNS server that would not be
part of an AD domain I would suggest that they use Linux. It is not that
difficult to install and maintain Windows SBS but I would say that to get it
set up you may want to invest in the help of a professional or buy a good
book on SBS to educate yourself to see if you or someone that works with you
feels up to it. You might want to post in one of the SBS newsgroups for more
opinions on that. --- Steve



"Soft" <happsz(at)o2.pl> wrote in message news:4337fcab@news.home.net.pl...
> Hello,
> I need to estabiilish a new solution for my company (rather small). We now
> need a company server that should handle 10 workstations - to provide
> users with opportuninty of sharing their project files and to set their
> own e-mail accounts on it. We already have a proper machine (as I was
> told), but I don't know which software will be good enough for this task,
> and of course it shall be not expensive - we are only interested in the
> genuine software. My colleagues told me about some Linux OS, but we don't
> want to pay for the server administration right now, and no-one in my team
> knows this systems. Can you help me to choose a right software?
> Shall Windows Small Business Server 2003 be a good solution (can a common
> computer user operate it?), or do we really need an adminitrator to handle
> one of the Unix systems?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Hailie
>

Imhotep
Tue Sep 27 22:01:59 CDT 2005

Steven L Umbach wrote:

> SBS 2003 would be a goof choice and it also comes with a version on
> Exchange. There are a number of good books out about Windows 2003 Server
> and SBS 2003 and a number of newsgroups with very helpful people. Linux is
> not
> the best choice for a managed environment if you have Windows 2000 and
> particularly Windows XP Pro computers. You can do a lot to have consistent
> security policy and user environment in an Active Directory domain much
> you will probably not appreciate at first. While the cost of Linux is
> attractive you need to think about total cost of ownership and not just
> the cost of the operating system. If someone wanted to create a DNS server
> that would not be
> part of an AD domain I would suggest that they use Linux. It is not that
> difficult to install and maintain Windows SBS but I would say that to get
> it set up you may want to invest in the help of a professional or buy a
> good book on SBS to educate yourself to see if you or someone that works
> with you feels up to it. You might want to post in one of the SBS
> newsgroups for more
> opinions on that. --- Steve

Using OpenLDAP with Bind DNS you have a "AD w/DNS" solution. Oh, yea, that
is more secure, runs better and costs nothing :-)


> "Soft" <happsz(at)o2.pl> wrote in message
> news:4337fcab@news.home.net.pl...
>> Hello,
>> I need to estabiilish a new solution for my company (rather small). We
>> now need a company server that should handle 10 workstations - to provide
>> users with opportuninty of sharing their project files and to set their
>> own e-mail accounts on it. We already have a proper machine (as I was
>> told), but I don't know which software will be good enough for this task,
>> and of course it shall be not expensive - we are only interested in the
>> genuine software. My colleagues told me about some Linux OS, but we don't
>> want to pay for the server administration right now, and no-one in my
>> team knows this systems. Can you help me to choose a right software?
>> Shall Windows Small Business Server 2003 be a good solution (can a common
>> computer user operate it?), or do we really need an adminitrator to
>> handle one of the Unix systems?
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>> Hailie
>>

Im

Steven
Tue Sep 27 23:49:05 CDT 2005

Sure that will work but if you already have a domain controller you already
have bought and installed a copy of Windows 2003 Server so the costs nothing
does not really help. Windows Active Directory integrated dns zones also
replicate while encrypted with AD replication traffic, can use secure
dynamic dns, and if you want you can further encrypt, authenticate, and
ensure integrity of all traffic between domain controllers with ipsec. ---
Steve


"Imhotep" <Imhotep@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:kK6dnabcTbQ1mqfeRVn-qQ@adelphia.com...
> Steven L Umbach wrote:
>
>> SBS 2003 would be a goof choice and it also comes with a version on
>> Exchange. There are a number of good books out about Windows 2003 Server
>> and SBS 2003 and a number of newsgroups with very helpful people. Linux
>> is
>> not
>> the best choice for a managed environment if you have Windows 2000 and
>> particularly Windows XP Pro computers. You can do a lot to have
>> consistent
>> security policy and user environment in an Active Directory domain much
>> you will probably not appreciate at first. While the cost of Linux is
>> attractive you need to think about total cost of ownership and not just
>> the cost of the operating system. If someone wanted to create a DNS
>> server
>> that would not be
>> part of an AD domain I would suggest that they use Linux. It is not that
>> difficult to install and maintain Windows SBS but I would say that to get
>> it set up you may want to invest in the help of a professional or buy a
>> good book on SBS to educate yourself to see if you or someone that works
>> with you feels up to it. You might want to post in one of the SBS
>> newsgroups for more
>> opinions on that. --- Steve
>
> Using OpenLDAP with Bind DNS you have a "AD w/DNS" solution. Oh, yea, that
> is more secure, runs better and costs nothing :-)
>
>
>> "Soft" <happsz(at)o2.pl> wrote in message
>> news:4337fcab@news.home.net.pl...
>>> Hello,
>>> I need to estabiilish a new solution for my company (rather small). We
>>> now need a company server that should handle 10 workstations - to
>>> provide
>>> users with opportuninty of sharing their project files and to set their
>>> own e-mail accounts on it. We already have a proper machine (as I was
>>> told), but I don't know which software will be good enough for this
>>> task,
>>> and of course it shall be not expensive - we are only interested in the
>>> genuine software. My colleagues told me about some Linux OS, but we
>>> don't
>>> want to pay for the server administration right now, and no-one in my
>>> team knows this systems. Can you help me to choose a right software?
>>> Shall Windows Small Business Server 2003 be a good solution (can a
>>> common
>>> computer user operate it?), or do we really need an adminitrator to
>>> handle one of the Unix systems?
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance,
>>> Hailie
>>>
>
> Im

Imhotep
Wed Sep 28 20:18:04 CDT 2005

Steven L Umbach wrote:

> Sure that will work but if you already have a domain controller you
> already have bought and installed a copy of Windows 2003 Server so the
> costs nothing does not really help. Windows Active Directory integrated
> dns zones also replicate while encrypted with AD replication traffic, can
> use secure
> dynamic dns, and if you want you can further encrypt, authenticate, and
> ensure integrity of all traffic between domain controllers with ipsec.
> --- Steve

And so can Openldap. Furthermore, I cam use certificates on client machines
to further secure (and validate) dynamic dns updates...

I can also configure LDAP via a secure web site (easier administration),
replicate (with encrypted sessions) and oh yea, I do not have to bind to
the root for user authentications.

and oh yea, is more secure, runs better and still costs nothing.

>
>
> "Imhotep" <Imhotep@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:kK6dnabcTbQ1mqfeRVn-qQ@adelphia.com...
>> Steven L Umbach wrote:
>>
>>> SBS 2003 would be a goof choice and it also comes with a version on
>>> Exchange. There are a number of good books out about Windows 2003 Server
>>> and SBS 2003 and a number of newsgroups with very helpful people. Linux
>>> is
>>> not
>>> the best choice for a managed environment if you have Windows 2000 and
>>> particularly Windows XP Pro computers. You can do a lot to have
>>> consistent
>>> security policy and user environment in an Active Directory domain much
>>> you will probably not appreciate at first. While the cost of Linux is
>>> attractive you need to think about total cost of ownership and not just
>>> the cost of the operating system. If someone wanted to create a DNS
>>> server
>>> that would not be
>>> part of an AD domain I would suggest that they use Linux. It is not
>>> that difficult to install and maintain Windows SBS but I would say that
>>> to get it set up you may want to invest in the help of a professional or
>>> buy a good book on SBS to educate yourself to see if you or someone that
>>> works with you feels up to it. You might want to post in one of the SBS
>>> newsgroups for more
>>> opinions on that. --- Steve


>>
>> Using OpenLDAP with Bind DNS you have a "AD w/DNS" solution. Oh, yea,
>> that is more secure, runs better and costs nothing :-)
>>
>>
>>> "Soft" <happsz(at)o2.pl> wrote in message
>>> news:4337fcab@news.home.net.pl...
>>>> Hello,
>>>> I need to estabiilish a new solution for my company (rather small). We
>>>> now need a company server that should handle 10 workstations - to
>>>> provide
>>>> users with opportuninty of sharing their project files and to set their
>>>> own e-mail accounts on it. We already have a proper machine (as I was
>>>> told), but I don't know which software will be good enough for this
>>>> task,
>>>> and of course it shall be not expensive - we are only interested in the
>>>> genuine software. My colleagues told me about some Linux OS, but we
>>>> don't
>>>> want to pay for the server administration right now, and no-one in my
>>>> team knows this systems. Can you help me to choose a right software?
>>>> Shall Windows Small Business Server 2003 be a good solution (can a
>>>> common
>>>> computer user operate it?), or do we really need an adminitrator to
>>>> handle one of the Unix systems?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks in advance,
>>>> Hailie
>>>>
>>
>> Im

IM

Steven
Wed Sep 28 22:28:04 CDT 2005

For an AD domain there is no advantage in cost to use Bind and it would
actually add the cost of another server to run on. Windows DNS, particularly
for Windows 2003, has shown to be very robust. Bind can not use Active
Directory integrated dns zones which use multimaster replication which is a
huge plus where dynamic dns is used and it also makes sense to run DNS on
domain controllers for performance reasons. The SANS top 20 vulnerabilities
does not even mention DNS for Windows while Bind is number one for Unix
vulnerabilities though recent versions of Bind have proven to be secure so
far as Windows 2003 DNS has. The latest versions of Bind would be the choice
for DNS servers on the internet. --- Steve


"Imhotep" <Imhotep@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:vKmdnZAUm-xR3abeRVn-og@adelphia.com...
> Steven L Umbach wrote:
>
>> Sure that will work but if you already have a domain controller you
>> already have bought and installed a copy of Windows 2003 Server so the
>> costs nothing does not really help. Windows Active Directory integrated
>> dns zones also replicate while encrypted with AD replication traffic, can
>> use secure
>> dynamic dns, and if you want you can further encrypt, authenticate, and
>> ensure integrity of all traffic between domain controllers with ipsec.
>> --- Steve
>
> And so can Openldap. Furthermore, I cam use certificates on client
> machines
> to further secure (and validate) dynamic dns updates...
>
> I can also configure LDAP via a secure web site (easier administration),
> replicate (with encrypted sessions) and oh yea, I do not have to bind to
> the root for user authentications.
>
> and oh yea, is more secure, runs better and still costs nothing.
>
>>
>>
>> "Imhotep" <Imhotep@nospam.net> wrote in message
>> news:kK6dnabcTbQ1mqfeRVn-qQ@adelphia.com...
>>> Steven L Umbach wrote:
>>>
>>>> SBS 2003 would be a goof choice and it also comes with a version on
>>>> Exchange. There are a number of good books out about Windows 2003
>>>> Server
>>>> and SBS 2003 and a number of newsgroups with very helpful people. Linux
>>>> is
>>>> not
>>>> the best choice for a managed environment if you have Windows 2000 and
>>>> particularly Windows XP Pro computers. You can do a lot to have
>>>> consistent
>>>> security policy and user environment in an Active Directory domain much
>>>> you will probably not appreciate at first. While the cost of Linux is
>>>> attractive you need to think about total cost of ownership and not just
>>>> the cost of the operating system. If someone wanted to create a DNS
>>>> server
>>>> that would not be
>>>> part of an AD domain I would suggest that they use Linux. It is not
>>>> that difficult to install and maintain Windows SBS but I would say that
>>>> to get it set up you may want to invest in the help of a professional
>>>> or
>>>> buy a good book on SBS to educate yourself to see if you or someone
>>>> that
>>>> works with you feels up to it. You might want to post in one of the SBS
>>>> newsgroups for more
>>>> opinions on that. --- Steve
>
>
>>>
>>> Using OpenLDAP with Bind DNS you have a "AD w/DNS" solution. Oh, yea,
>>> that is more secure, runs better and costs nothing :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Soft" <happsz(at)o2.pl> wrote in message
>>>> news:4337fcab@news.home.net.pl...
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>> I need to estabiilish a new solution for my company (rather small). We
>>>>> now need a company server that should handle 10 workstations - to
>>>>> provide
>>>>> users with opportuninty of sharing their project files and to set
>>>>> their
>>>>> own e-mail accounts on it. We already have a proper machine (as I was
>>>>> told), but I don't know which software will be good enough for this
>>>>> task,
>>>>> and of course it shall be not expensive - we are only interested in
>>>>> the
>>>>> genuine software. My colleagues told me about some Linux OS, but we
>>>>> don't
>>>>> want to pay for the server administration right now, and no-one in my
>>>>> team knows this systems. Can you help me to choose a right software?
>>>>> Shall Windows Small Business Server 2003 be a good solution (can a
>>>>> common
>>>>> computer user operate it?), or do we really need an adminitrator to
>>>>> handle one of the Unix systems?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks in advance,
>>>>> Hailie
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Im
>
> IM

Imhotep
Thu Sep 29 00:14:36 CDT 2005

Steven L Umbach wrote:

> For an AD domain there is no advantage in cost to use Bind and it would
> actually add the cost of another server to run on. Windows DNS,
> particularly for Windows 2003, has shown to be very robust. Bind can not
> use Active Directory integrated dns zones which use multimaster
> replication which is a huge plus where dynamic dns is used and it also
> makes sense to run DNS on domain controllers for performance reasons.

Multimaster DNS replications is proprietary!!!!

> The
> SANS top 20 vulnerabilities does not even mention DNS for Windows while
> Bind is number one for Unix vulnerabilities though recent versions of Bind
> have proven to be secure so far as Windows 2003 DNS has.

Now hold on if we are going to go back to old versions there are just as
many in MS DNS!


> The latest
> versions of Bind would be the choice
> for DNS servers on the internet. --- Steve

Ask yourself why all the root DNS servers are BIND and not Windows. How many
times have those few (12 or so?) servers withstood multi-country DDOS
attacks!!!

Again, the choice is clear. OpenLDAP with Bind DNS...


Im